Cost of reducing emssions

Martyn1981

PasturesNew wrote: »

I drive a diesel. I often wonder how my 3000 miles/year compares to a top sports car that's doing 60,000 miles/year including driving down most weekends to their second home in Cornwall/Devon. My 3000 miles are pretty much "need", their 60,000 are mostly "want".

Sticking with the thread title, there is some great news for you. For someone doing so little mileage, you may want to consider buying a small second hand BEV. With reduced fuel, servicing, and maintenance costs, you will most likely find that that the TCO (total cost of ownership) is lower, even if the BEV costs a bit more than your current diesel.

And don't worry about those sports cars, they are now being outgunned and embarrassed by large Tesla saloons, and the Tesla Roadster's aim is to go one step further:

“The point of doing this is to give a hardcore smackdown to gasoline cars,” Elon Musk 2017

EVandPV

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And don't worry about those sports cars, they are now being outgunned and embarrassed by large Tesla saloons, and the Tesla Roadster's aim is to go one step further:

“The point of doing this is to give a hardcore smackdown to gasoline cars,” Elon Musk 2017

Purist petrolheads still won't buy them though because they don't go "vroom".

mmmmikey

GreatApe wrote: »

I've worked in heavy industry you have no idea how ridiculous this idea is

Heavy industry is akin to a nuclear power stations it's hugely capital intensive
I'd you spend £10 billion on a heavy industry plant with 20 years life that's £1.37 million pounds per day if you run at 100% capacity. If you run at 30% capacity only when the wind blows or the sub shines that's £4.6 million pounds per day

In short electricity is an economic enabler it has to be on all the time
You don't save 10p on electricity to lose £100 on sales



You can't run a advanced economy on part time electricity this is ridiculous behind ridiculous




I. Imaginative but trust me electricity has to always be available

It costs 0.01 pennies on electricity to make a coffee which sells for £3.50
Electricity is an economic enabler it has to be on always


More importantly I can state state the obvious
Look at any ANY developing county with increasing electricity demand
Are they able to 'just be imaginative' or are they having to build conventional thermal and hydropower to make things work?

The basic premise of your argument is that solar and wind power aren't a cost effective way of reducing emissions because electricity is needed continuously. However, despite dismissing options for demand management as ridiculous you present no coherent argument to support this.

Taking your heavy industry plant with a 20 year lifecycle as an example, you have completely overlooked (or considered and dismissed) the very realistic possibility that a plant that lasts 20 years running continuously could last 40 years if it runs for 6 months out of every 12.

I think what is happening here is that your experience is limiting your thinking and your are constrained by a sort of "it has to be done that way because that's how we've always done it" mentality. The question here is not "can you take an existing heavy industry plant that is designed to run continuously and switch it on and off as required?" The question is "how can a heavy industry plant be designed for use with solar or wind power?" You have offered no explanation at all as to why this can't be done.

Your coffee example again illustrates how narrow your thinking is and how it is limited by your pre-conceived idea that the only way to make and enjoy coffee is by having a 24 by 7 electricity supply. This falls down at 2 levels. Firstly, you don't need electricity at all to make good coffee - I do it all the time with my Kelly kettle. Secondly, even if you do want to us electricty, you don't need that electricity to be available 24 x 7 - you just make it when the electricty is available and put in in a Thermos flask.

What you have, in my view, highlighted here is where the real problem in solving climate change cost effectively lies. It is not down to technology or engineering. The real challenge is (apologies in advance for the cliche) getting people to think outside the box.

You're going to have to do a lot better than a couple of questionable examples and assertions that you know what you're talking about if you want to convince me that the problem of using solar and wind power far more extensively are insurmountable.

Now loop back to the original question posed by this thread - essentially should we spend gazillions tackling climate change when our efforts alone will make little difference? One very good, powerful reason for doing that is that if we are the nation that applies itself to tackling what is an eminently solvable problem (using the cliche again, thinking outside the box) we could become a nation of world-class engineers, leading the field like we did in the days of the Industrial Revolution.

With the exception of a few hardcore loonies, the problems associated with climate change are recognised and understood the world over which will inevitably lead to investment to tackle the problem at some stage, creating a huge market for those countries that have had the foresight and strategic thinking to develop the products and services needed.

PasturesNew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sticking with the thread title, there is some great news for you. For someone doing so little mileage, you may want to consider buying a small second hand BEV. With reduced fuel, servicing, and maintenance costs, you will most likely find that that the TCO (total cost of ownership) is lower, even if the BEV costs a bit more than your current diesel.

And don't worry about those sports cars, they are now being outgunned and embarrassed by large Tesla saloons, and the Tesla Roadster's aim is to go one step further:

“The point of doing this is to give a hardcore smackdown to gasoline cars,” Elon Musk 2017

My car is worth less than £1k, it's 14 years old.
I can't afford a newer car.
It's cost me almost nothing since I bought it 10 years ago.

I probably expect to buy a replacement car, probably 8-10 years old, in 2-3 years' time. Budget I'd expect would be £2-3k.

Those BEV things don't work for people away from big cities, without access to charging points, who will then want to do 170 mile journeys into the furthest countryside

If somebody did a straight swap for my car, without additional cost -and- explained to me how you find charging points/how they work/how likely you are to be able to find one without queuing.... I would listen.

Solarchaser

If you have a modernish smart phone, download the "zapmap" app and have a look.

You will likely be very surprised how many charging points are near where you live and on the journeys into the countryside.

I say that as someone who did that a little over a year ago, and was stunned to see how many were in a 5 mile radius.

I've also only once had to que for a charge, in motorway services in Warwick (I think) and it was because two ice cars were blocking 2 of the 3 charging bays, and an elderly chap was trying to work out how to use the unlocked one, as he has just bought the car.

Martyn1981

PasturesNew wrote: »

My car is worth less than £1k, it's 14 years old.
I can't afford a newer car.
It's cost me almost nothing since I bought it 10 years ago.

I probably expect to buy a replacement car, probably 8-10 years old, in 2-3 years' time. Budget I'd expect would be £2-3k.

Those BEV things don't work for people away from big cities, without access to charging points, who will then want to do 170 mile journeys into the furthest countryside

If somebody did a straight swap for my car, without additional cost -and- explained to me how you find charging points/how they work/how likely you are to be able to find one without queuing.... I would listen.

Hiya, yes I appreciate that a BEV, even an older sh one will cost more than your car to buy. However, that's why I stressed TCO (total cost of ownership) which will most likely be lower.

You say your car costs you almost nothing over the last 10yrs, but I'd suggest that's not entirely true. You have been funding 3k miles of diesel, plus the servicing costs, plus the MOT costs and any maintenance to keep an old ICE running. BEV costs for these issues will be far, far lower.

I'm also not entirely convinced by your lack of charging, and need for 170 mile trips. If you are away from a big city (I live in one) then I'd expect the vast majority to have access to home charging (I do). And 170 mile trips mean you only use your car ~17 times per year, is that correct? If so, have you considered car share, car pool, or car rental instead of ownership?

If you are interested in reducing emissions, and the cost of reducing emissions, then you might also be interested in getting PV, as this will help to lower your/UK emissions, and combined with a BEV (charging your car for 'free' approx 6 months of the year) would most likely save you money. So reduced emissions at a less than zero cost. Great.

silverwhistle

PasturesNew wrote: »

I drive a diesel. I often wonder how my 3000 miles/year compares to a top sports car that's doing 60,000 miles/year including driving down most weekends to their second home in Cornwall/Devon. My 3000 miles are pretty much "need", their 60,000 are mostly "want".

Oof, I wouldn't want a diesel for that sort of mileage, even one of the older simpler ones, although those you could at least run on cooking oil.



Your mileage is less even than mine, and depending on your regular journeys you could get a second hand 24kw Leaf. I could afford one easily enough but it doesn't have quite enough range for my pattern of usage so I'm waiting for longer range second hand EVs to come within what I want to spend.

silverwhistle

Since seen your subsequent post. That is a low budget, but it's worth considering the lack of car tax, oil changes, exhaust and other servicing costs you'd avoid, let alone the cheaper fuel. I don't have a drive and am looking at charging in my area; there are quite a few and a free one in Tesco's would give me 20+ miles of range from a standard visit to the shopping centre. Zapmap is useful and updated pretty quickly: it's got the new chargers in my nearest market town which I only just heard about via the local press.


Worth investigating perhaps, it's an interesting subject and the way the world is going. If your 170 mile trip is to Bristol or other city centres you might not be able to use your diesel there anyway!

GreatApe

mmmmikey wrote: »

The basic premise of your argument is that solar and wind power aren't a cost effective way of reducing emissions

It depends what value you put on emmissions
I'd put the value at close to zero while others would put it at absurd amounts
BTW I think UK offshore wind power at £46/MWh is acceptable premium even though it's more expensive than just using CCGTs it's for me acceptable so I am not against the UK plans to basically go 55% wind power 45% mix of of hydro PV bio imports and gas.

However, despite dismissing options for demand management as ridiculous you present no coherent argument to support this.

Some demand management makes sense. Like refrigeration over 1-3 hour periods
Others like hiring chemical engineers on zero hour contracts and sending them a text the night before if they are working tomorrow or not because of wind latter....doesn't make sense

Also in skeptical of even refrigeration as demand management because it adds risk
Sure it helps the grid a little bit
But you then have 40 million internet connected fridges and all it takes is one hacker to tell th all to come on or off at once and your going to have partial blackouts.

Can software ever be made to be in hackable?
If not what is the cost of hackers taking the grid down?
Is it worth making fridges smart if this smartness means a hacker can take out the grid for a period of time? What will the savings be against a hospital losing owler for 2 hours?

Taking your heavy industry plant with a 20 year lifecycle as an example, you have completely overlooked (or considered and dismissed) the very realistic possibility that a plant that lasts 20 years running continuously could last 40 years if it runs for 6 months out of every 12.

I honestly don't have the will to argue against this point
It is beyond ridiculous to think you can run 24/7 high capital industry on a part time basis
I've worked in heavy industry to know what I'm talking about

I think what is happening here is that your experience is limiting your thinking and your are constrained by a sort of "it has to be done that way because that's how we've always done it" mentality. The question here is not "can you take an existing heavy industry plant that is designed to run continuously and switch it on and off as required?" The question is "how can a heavy industry plant be designed for use with solar or wind power?" You have offered no explanation at all as to why this can't be done.

I didn't say it can't be done
In fairytale land were costs and economics is irrelevant it can be done
On reality when business runs on you know sales and costs you'd be screwed Vs the competition which is running their plant 24/7 and the consumer would cry murder if you doubled price because your only running when the wind is blowing

Your coffee example again illustrates how narrow your thinking is and how it is limited by your pre-conceived idea that the only way to make and enjoy coffee is by having a 24 by 7 electricity supply. This falls down at 2 levels. Firstly, you don't need electricity at all to make good coffee - I do it all the time with my Kelly kettle. Secondly, even if you do want to us electricty, you don't need that electricity to be available 24 x 7 - you just make it when the electricty is available and put in in a Thermos flask.

Maybe this was a bad point
The point I was trying to make is that electricity is an economic enabler
A penny of electricity allows magnitudes more in sales so it has to be available all the time

If you disagree shoe me just one country one city one town where they are rich and electricity is intermittent. Even you lot with your batteries have not disconnected from the grid. Why don't you disconnect and see how well you manage

What you have, in my view, highlighted here is where the real problem in solving climate change cost effectively lies. It is not down to technology or engineering. The real challenge is (apologies in advance for the cliche) getting people to think outside the box.

No one is going to buy what your selling if you're selling sacrifice
Apart from the religious and you won't Gona convert many
Even on here how many eat meat is it a necessity? No but they don't stop because they don't want to buy what your selling.

You're going to have to do a lot better than a couple of questionable examples and assertions that you know what you're talking about if you want to convince me that the problem of using solar and wind power far more extensively are insurmountable

.

I never said more solar and wind is impossible
I evwn said I expect wind and solar can become the #1 source of electricity worldwide
I said so far it's not likely at all likely that you can have a grid without mass conventional generation and this is true no where on the planet has an energy island that has no conventional hydro/gas/coal/nuclear

Now loop back to the original question posed by this thread - essentially should we spend gazillions tackling climate change when our efforts alone will make little difference? One very good, powerful reason for doing that is that if we are the nation that applies itself to tackling what is an eminently solvable problem (using the cliche again, thinking outside the box) we could become a nation of world-class engineers, leading the field like we did in the days of the Industrial Revolution.

This again is wrong
Electricity and energy needs to be very cheap
For this reason we aren't going to become a nation rich on the back of energy technology exports
It's as nonsense as if someone claimed their nation should become a powerhouse in agriculture
It can't happen because base ingredients need to be really cheap you can't base economic success on farming just like you can't base economic success on exporting wins farms
Not that it's at all likely the UK will become a huge wind farm exporter!!
This will be the preserve of the lower wage economies like Asia or it will be produced domestic by the countries installing subsidised wind in their back yard

With the exception of a few hardcore loonies, the problems associated with climate change are recognised and understood the world over which will inevitably lead to investment to tackle the problem at some stage, creating a huge market for those countries that have had the foresight and strategic thinking to develop the products and services needed.

Why would say India import wind turbines from the UK?

It makes no sense whatsoever
They will build their own
For transport reasons
For wage reasons
For security reasons

The idea that the UK will become a powerhouse of wind technology is silly
This will be the low wage economies

China took over the German solar industry because they can pay people 1/10th as much to build a PV factory and that PV factory

Also the future is robots and AI
It doesn't matter who has the PV or wind farm industry
It's all going to be overtaken by the AI

Cardew

Cardew wrote: »

Few doubt the importance of combatting Global Warming, albeit some question how much is due to us humans. The case for the latter is weakened by Trump being a proponent!!

So it would appear that if GB succeeds in reducing all our emissions to Zero by 2050 at current rates we will have made a reduction of 1% in the world figure. However if current forecasts are correct, by 2040 China alone will have increased the world total by 23%(i.e. they will have doubled their emissions.

Do we have any faith that the Big 3 and third world countries will stop increasing emissions, let alone aim for a Zero output.

I can't help feeling there is a parallel between the 'Green' protestors on the streets arguing that GB is not doing enough, and the 'Ban the Bomb' protestors of YesterYear arguing that Britain should unilaterally get rid of Nuclear weapons to set an example to the rest of the world and they would surely follow.

So my question is can GB alone justify spending such vast sums for an almost negligible effect? I for one have my doubts.

From today's meeting it is clear Trump has not changed his mind!


It raises, again the issue of the UK spending £multi-billions for What? and Why?